Why are gay marriages wrong?

[Inquirer]

As a catholic I know gay sex and gay marriages are wrong. The Church says it’s wrong because it goes against the order of nature.

Problem is … how do I convince people that it’s wrong without resorting to religion?

There are no studies that prove that being in a gay relationship is harmful, there are no studies that show that kids growing up in gay families are any worse off then those growing up in straight families … if you know of any, that would be helpful.

How do we claim that it is wrong in today’s secular and humanist world without looking like intolerant bigots?

 

[Julianna]

Bill O’Reilly seems to have the best answer on the issue.

Marriage is a sacrament, which brings the Judeo Christian teachings into play. Civil Union is man’s law.

O’Reilly explains it better than I can.

 

[whatevergirl]

As a catholic I know gay sex and gay marriages are wrong. The Church says it’s wrong because it goes against the order of nature.

Problem is … how do I convince people that it’s wrong without resorting to religion?

There are no studies that prove that being in a gay relationship is harmful, there are no studies that show that kids growing up in gay families are any worse off then those growing up in straight families … if you know of any, that would be helpful.

How do we claim that it is wrong in today’s secular and humanist world without looking like intolerant bigots?

I don’t think you can genuinely debate the topic without bringing God into it. Really…leaving Him out of the discussion is precisely why we have become such a subjective-morality type society…instead of one that believes in absolute truths.

 

[Inquirer]

I don’t think you can genuinely debate the topic without bringing God into it. Really…leaving Him out of the discussion is precisely why we have become such a subjective-morality type society…instead of one that believes in absolute truths.

So it looks like the Church will stand alone against gay sex and be branded intolerant, archaic, moralistic, judgemental and hypocritical (they will usually throw the sex scandal thing at us somewhere in the branding - you know I’m really quite miffed at how some of the Bishops handled the whole sad affair - we have really taken a bad blow to our credibility because of that. In a world where people seem unable to distinguish between sin and doctrine, the scandal continues to be a terrible blow for us)

I just hope Protestantism comes to our side but I’m not gonna hold my breath. Ironically, I have more faith on Islam being on our side than I do Protestantism.

 

[whatevergirl]

So it looks like the Church will stand alone against gay sex and be branded intolerant, archaic, moralistic, judgemental and hypocritical (they will usually throw the sex scandal thing at us somewhere in the branding - you know I’m really quite miffed at how some of the Bishops handled the whole sad affair - we have really taken a bad blow to our credibility because of that. In a world where people seem unable to distinguish between sin and doctrine, the scandal is a terrible blow for us)

I just hope Protestantism comes to our side but I’m not gonna hold my breath. Ironically, I have more faith on Islam being on our side than I do Protestantism.

Well…as the RCC says…this is something we need to take up with God, if we have a problem with it. The RCC is merely following God’s orders on the matter. If the Church is branded this or that…so what? I mean…it might not be a popular view, but it’s the right view. What’s that saying? Being popular isn’t always right…and being right isn’t always popular.

 

[Mirdath]

How do we claim that it is wrong in today’s secular and humanist world without looking like intolerant bigots?

Basically, you don’t. That’s the short answer, and most of the long one too.

To the poster who differentiated between legal/civil union and sacramental/marriage – the issue here is more that ‘marriage’ is used in the legal definitions as well. Legal ‘marriage’ is for all intents and purposes identical to a legal civil union (so why bother to have two separate categories…?). Sacramentally, of course, churches can choose who they’ll marry all they want.

 

[Pax]

I do not have references to studies at my finger tips but the facts are available.

Please consider the following:

1. Homosexuality is by its very nature objectively disordered and unnatural. Approximately 2 to 5% of the population is homosexual. This statistic alone should be sufficient evidence that homosexuality is unnatural.
2. Until the mid-seventies the psychological community of professionals labeled homosexuality as deviant. This was changed when homosexuals gained control of important organizations within the psychological community and changed the definitions.
3. Homosexual marriage is allowed in the Scandanavian countries. No surprise there. After making gay marriage legal, all marriages began to decline in number in these countries. The number of people shacking up has climbed dramatically and marriage simply doesn’t have the value it had prior to gay marriage.
4. Children do suffer when raised by same sex couples and there is data that shows this. Common sense also tells us that it is detrimental. First of all, the children do not learn what a woman is supposed to be like and how she is to relate to men, other women, and children in a family when there are two male partners. Likewise, children will not be able to properly learn what a man is supposed to be like as father and husband when the children have two moms. Finally, children in these homes are exposed to the concept that it is perfectly natural and good to be homosexual. Moreover, there will be more homosexual children emerging from homosexual home environments than there will be from homes with loving parents that are heterosexual. All information to the contrary is nonsense.
5. The data on damage to children is still emerging and much of it will not be measurable for awhile. There are also negative influences brought on by homosexuality in homes with heterosexual parents. Heterosexual parents have become brain washed by the homosexual community to the degree that some will not even consider intervening if their child expresses any same sex attraction. In most cases, early professional intervention can easily correct same sex attraction before it becomes a serious and permanent issue.

I could go on and on about this. There is plenty of information available that shows that the root problems in homosexuality are almost always psychologically based. There is virtually no data that shows that people are simply born gay. What evidence that does exist is pretty sketchy and may only indicate a “possibility” that there might be some kind of predisposition towards it.

Please don’t consider what has been said as the rantings of a gay basher or homophobe. The truth simply needs be told. While I am no expert, I have read enough material to be convinced that the gay agenda and its propaganda machine has overwhelmed the actual facts.

 

[Inquirer]

Hey Pax

First up I’d like to address this portion -

Please don’t consider what has been said as the rantings of a gay basher or homophobe.

No worries here. Just because one doesn’t agree with gay sex and is critical of it, doesn’t automatically make one a homophobe; no matter how much they might paint that to be.

It’s good that we have this understanding, so now you know when I play the devil’s advocate I will not be thinking that of you - I really want to be prepared for what I can expect when I try your arguments on them.

I do not have references to studies at my finger tips but the facts are available.

Please consider the following:

1. Homosexuality is by its very nature objectively disordered and unnatural. Approximately 2 to 5% of the population is homosexual. This statistic alone should be sufficient evidence that homosexuality is unnatural.

Well … I’m gonna need some references. Because, come on Pax, statements like this one just cannot hold water. Try this on for size -

Just because only 2 to 5% are homosexual doesn’t make it unnatural, it just makes it rare. The fact that the population has, and probably has always been 2 to 5% gay; suggests that it IS a natural phenomena. Rare, but natural.

In a similar vein, we probably have a pretty small percentage of the population with IQs above 200 … that doesn’t make them unnatural, they’re just rare.

1. Until the mid-seventies the psychological community of professionals labeled homosexuality as deviant. This was changed when homosexuals gained control of important organizations within the psychological community and changed the definitions.

First of all, I don’t think the psychological community should be misaligned that way, let’s give them a bit of credit. It’s hard to imagine the whole community was able to throw out objectivity because of pressure.

Secondly, I’m really gonna need some reliable source to show that “homosexuals gained control of important organizations within the psychological community and changed the definitions”

Do you know they are using this exact fact, backed with all the documentation and studies, to prove that it is NOT a psychological problem? And because there isn’t any documentation and studies to support the claim that it is a psychological problem in the first place, the fact that it was classified as one just supports the contention that it was based on prejudice.

1. Homosexual marriage is allowed in the Scandanavian countries. No surprise there. After making gay marriage legal, all marriages began to decline in number in these countries. … marriage simply doesn’t have the value it had prior to gay marriage.

I’m just reading an article that attributes contraceptives to the rise of loose morals and broken marriages. We can’t keep pinning this on all our bugbears.

Of course if you had a resource for this it would be good.

I’ve got to make this a 2 parter.

 

[Inquirer]

Continuing …

1. Children do suffer when raised by same sex couples and there is data that shows this. Common sense also tells us that it is detrimental. … Finally, children in these homes are exposed to the concept that it is perfectly natural and good to be homosexual… All information to the contrary is nonsense.

Actually, no. All the data does not support this, in fact, I would really appreciate data that DOES support this! That’s what I’ve come here to find!
Incidentally, you do realise that there are kids who are brought up in single parent families, right? Surely you’re not suggesting that they all have a danger of becomeing gay? Ironically, all gays must have come from hetero unions!

1. The data on damage to children is still emerging and much of it will not be measurable for awhile. There are also negative influences brought on by homosexuality in homes with heterosexual parents. … In most cases, early professional intervention can easily correct same sex attraction before it becomes a serious and permanent issue.

Both you and I know that same sex attraction should be avoided and that gay sex is wrong, but I think you forget that I’m trying to show why it is wrong. If we can’t show why it is wrong, we cannot assume that we should ‘correct’ same sex attraction.

I’m sure they might be delighted that their adoptive son becomes gay too! For them it’s not something to avoid. So this won’t cut any ice at all!

There is plenty of information available that shows that the root problems in homosexuality are almost always psychologically based. There is virtually no data that shows that people are simply born gay. What evidence that does exist is pretty sketchy and may only indicate a “possibility” that there might be some kind of predisposition towards it.

You know … I actually believe that people may very well be born gay, or at least have a damn high propensity for turning out gay. Same way how some can be born with a higher propensity to commit violence, or how some can be born with more intelligence, or how some can be born with more libido, or how some can be born blind, or handicapped in some other way. Of course, that doesn’t make gay sex right, but we can admit the possibility of genetics here while still maintaining that the acts is morally wrong. (eg, kleptomaniacs cannot be allowed to steal)

One of the biggest gripes by gays is that people distort scientific evidence to suit their purposes - they want the scientific evidence to be taken objectively and, in at least one instance, I’ve seen how a piece of evidence was distorted by Christians (intentionally or negligently I can’t tell) to forward their cause.

I find that the only fact to show that gay sex and marriage is wrong and should be avoided is the fact that God says NO. Problem is; this requires a belief that Christ’s church is able to reach objective truths.

 

[blessedtoo]

Inquirer,
If you are really serious about this issue, I have the answers for you all in one neat, tidy and fabulous new book. This book will provide you with countless citations to studies which refute the claim that same-sex marriage does no harm. In addition, it does this all from a completely secular perspective and was, in fact, written by a liberal! This book has completely changed the way I debate this subject. I never even need to bring religion into the argument to prove the undeniable fact that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable damamge to the institution of marriage. Get the book. Read it. You will be well armed.
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179901198&sr=8-1

 

[Exalt]

I don’t think you can genuinely debate the topic without bringing God into it. Really…leaving Him out of the discussion is precisely why we have become such a subjective-morality type society…instead of one that believes in absolute truths.

You know, I’m getting *really *tired of people saying that those who don’t like to invoke the divine in public debate don’t belive in absolute truth.

They don’t believe that what you believe is true. ← That’s not a statement indictative of a subjectivist viewpoint.

In fact, I wonder if *any *reasonable person believes in moral relativism.

 

[Inquirer]

Inquirer,
If you are really serious about this issue, I have the answers for you all in one neat, tidy and fabulous new book. This book will provide you with countless citations to studies which refute the claim that same-sex marriage does no harm. In addition, it does this all from a completely secular perspective and was, in fact, written by a liberal! This book has completely changed the way I debate this subject. I never even need to bring religion into the argument to prove the undeniable fact that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable damamge to the institution of marriage. Get the book. Read it. You will be well armed.
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179901198&sr=8-1

OK I will check this out. Not too expensive, I hope …

 

[puzzleannie]

As a catholic I know gay sex and gay marriages are wrong. The Church says it’s wrong because it goes against the order of nature.

Problem is … how do I convince people that it’s wrong without resorting to religion?

?

because there is no such thing. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, and you don’t need religion to prove it, you only need natural law, which every human can understand with the use of reason, and history.

Human history has enshrined and governed marriage for the well-being and protection of the family as the basis social unit, especially the care and protection of women and children. Unless marriage is ordered to family and children it has no social value or purpose. It has never been in any period of human history primarily an individual contract, it always is a social contract and must operate in the context of society and the well-being and survival of the greater society.

Simple biology shows the only survival purpose for sex is procreation, that bodies of all mammals including humans are designed for specific reproductive activity and development of the offspring, that although various bodily orifices may be capable of penetration by the sexual organ, only one combination–penis + vagina-- is deisgned for reproduction, so only that combination has survival value for the organism and for the species. Anything outside the biologic purpose results from disorder, either something that impacts the individual organism at conception or during pre-natal development, or some environmental impact or stress that promotes disorder after birth.

To institute with societal protection the notion of “gay marriage” is to, with one blow, destroy the entire history of marriage and family as an institution. We know this through the study of human history, including but not limited to the OT, which demonstrates how other forms of family arrangement eg polygamy, mitigated against family health and strength and therefore against the health of the society. It is also to blatantly disregard and denigrate the created nature of the human being, and in the process denying the dignity of man and woman, as well as the fundamental purpose of marriage which is procreation and unity. To divorce those mutual purposes is to deny marriage any meaning and dignity.

 

[whatevergirl]

You know, I’m getting *really *tired of people saying that those who don’t like to invoke the divine in public debate don’t belive in absolute truth.

They don’t believe that what you believe is true. ← That’s not a statement indictative of a subjectivist viewpoint.

In fact, I wonder if *any *reasonable person believes in moral relativism.

Maybe you need a nap.
All joking aside…You don’t have to agree with me. I’m offering my stance on it. I think that leaving out the Divine…who created us and gave us life…is not helpful to leave out in moral debates. Personally, I can only share what I believe, and plant a seed. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but if through God’s grace I can bring some enlightenment to the issue, on behalf of Him…then, that’s all I can hopeful of. If someone doesn’t believe in God, then it’s only natural that he/she will be against moral relativism. Morality is a good thing–to say it isn’t…is just someone wanting to justify his/her desires.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No data on ‘harm to children’, eh?

You know, I remember the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. I remember how we were told in those halcyon days of the 70s and 80s (and even into the early 90s) how it was ‘better’ for children if their parents divorced rather than ‘tough it out’. They had all sorts of statistics and anecdotal evidence comparing and contrasting children who had grown up in ‘divorced’ households versus children who grew up in households where the parents ‘stayed married’. Oh, how many difficulties and disorders affected the children of the latter group, while the former group did ‘better’, because they were removed from the ‘trauma’ of the daily yelling etc.

I remember how we were told that it was so much better for the child to see that, despite a ‘mistake’ (the marriage), the parents could amicably (or if not amicably, at least effectively) part ways and ‘go on with their lives’. How it was so great for the girls especially to see that mommy could ‘make it on her own’ without needing a man, how it was so great for the boys to see how hard mom worked and thus ‘take on those chores’ themselves. Supposedly this made boys much more capable and more prepared to raise children as ‘partners’. If fathers were referenced at all (and that started to happen in the backlash of Father’s Rights groups), it was to show usually that the mothers were sluts and the fathers nobly stepped forward and once again, were praised to the skies for changing diapers “just like a woman”, for ‘carrying on and maintaining a solid family’ despite being ‘abandoned’ by the wife, and usually both sides ended up with a happily blended ‘new’ spouse and step sibs in a Brady Bunch happily ever after life.

My point? Those ‘studies’ were specifically engineered to cater to the prevailing societal trends. So long as people were actually divorcing more, these studies BOLSTERED their decisions. Once the divorce rate began to drop, we started to see alarming reports about how divorce was really not so great for children, etc.

Right now, the prevailing wind in this society is ‘for’ gay marriage so we are going to see scads of ‘evidence’ and ‘documentation’ of how GOOD this is for children.

Mark my words, the minute that the ‘noble experience’ goes bust. . .and it will–just look at my state and the ‘breakup’ of our first civil union couple, the Jenkins-Miller women, and their bitter custody battle for the child they have–you will start to see how maybe gay marriages are not that good for children. . .
Because it won’t just be the ‘divorce’ issues as is most predominant in heterosexual marriage dissolutions. We aren’t even seeing the tip of the iceberg as regards ‘gay marriage’ because those with this agenda are keeping it very close to the chest precisely in order to engineer a support for those poor souls who supposedly only want the American Dream of ‘love’ and family. (The reality is going to come out later and it will not be pretty).

Of course, the problem will be (as it was for the millions affected in the last 30 plus years) that by then it will be too late to help the millions who will have suffered because of these ‘studies’.

 

[fix]

I don’t think you can genuinely debate the topic without bringing God into it. Really…leaving Him out of the discussion is precisely why we have become such a subjective-morality type society…instead of one that believes in absolute truths.

I agree. Many claim to be absolutists, but while they may not be strict relativists they certainly seem to think like relativists.

In this example of so called gay marriage many will say I believe in right and wrong and gay marriage is not for me, but why should I deny someone else that “right”. Kind of like the abortion debate. They say I think it is wrong, but who am I to deny another to have one?

That is absolutism? Hardly. If such a thing is wrong, then it is wrong for all not just for a few.

Here is a link with some good info:

tfp.org/tfc/same_sex_boston_arguments.pdf

 

[nova147]

You know, I’m getting *really *tired of people saying that those who don’t like to invoke the divine in public debate don’t belive in absolute truth.

They don’t believe that what you believe is true. ← That’s not a statement indictative of a subjectivist viewpoint.

In fact, I wonder if *any *reasonable person believes in moral relativism.

There is a problem with atheistic moral absolutists. Where do they get their understanding of moral absolutes? Who defines morality? Withotu God, these questions are very difficult. In fact, I think the only realistic option is that there are moral absolutes, but we don’t know what they are and have no way to know.

(BTW, DH was an atheistic moral absolutist when we met. Now that he is a Catholic seeking entrance into a Master’s program for theology, he believes that God protected him by helping him to recognize absolute truth exsisted, even when he believed God didn’t exist. I hope that made sense!)

MJ

 

[Mirdath]

There is a problem with atheistic moral absolutists. Where do they get their understanding of moral absolutes? Who defines morality? Withotu God, these questions are very difficult. In fact, I think the only realistic option is that there are moral absolutes, but we don’t know what they are and have no way to know.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant

The Categorical Imperative is a decent start.

 

[actorgirl]

If a gay couple get’s married by, let’s say, a judge, how does that take away from any one else? I mean you can be repulsed by it and think they are the biggest sinners of our times, but it has nothing to do with your life.

Can’t atheist get married?

A few years back, I wouldn’t have been allowed to marry my husband, b/c I am black and he is white.

I’m all about equal rights.

 

[fix]

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant

The Categorical Imperative is a decent start.

…Kant relegates everything else to subjectivity. The moral law is not “without” but “within,” not objective but subjective, not a Natural Law of objective rights and wrongs that comes from God but a man-made law by which we decide to bind ourselves. (But if we bind ourselves, are we really bound?) Morality is a matter of subjective intention only. It has no content except the Golden Rule (Kant’s “categorical imperative”)…

The Pillars of Unbelief